mgmt dropped requirement! Thanks! Re: I want initial revision to be 2.1, not 1.1

Thank you Torsten Martinsen [email protected] and Michael Kohne [email protected] 

mgmt retreated.

They now want to version using tags, and only allow certain CVS users the power to use certain tags...  what could go wrong?

thanks!

On 26/06/12 23:01, Louis Geronime wrote:
> Hi;
>
> TortoiseCVS version
> 1.12.5
> Concurrent Versions System (CVSNT) 2.5.05 (Gan) Build 3744
>
>
> We are doing a major upgrade and mgmt want all code (Crystal reports)  for the new system to be branded with a new version.   Our current CVS system uses the default 1.1 for new files -- which works great.
>
> We now want anything checked into the new repository to start at v2.1  -- this sounds fine because Cederqvist says:
Forget about it. Revision numbers are used internally by CVS and should 
not be modified.

Use tags, that's what they are there for.

-Torsten

>>> Michael Kohne <[email protected]> 6/27/2012 7:35 AM >>>
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Louis Geronime
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi;
>
> TortoiseCVS version
> 1.12.5
> Concurrent Versions System (CVSNT) 2.5.05 (Gan) Build 3744
>
>
> We are doing a major upgrade and mgmt want all code (Crystal reports)  for the new system to be branded with a new version.   Our current CVS system uses the default 1.1 for new files -- which works great.
>
> We now want anything checked into the new repository to start at v2.1  -- this sounds fine because Cederqvist says:

Trying to force revision numbers in CVS is probably a bad idea. These
are intended as internal-use things, and by trying to force them to be
a particular number you risk exposing bugs in the clients and/or
servers that expect certain behavior. It's much safer to tag things
and let CVS do what it likes with the file version numbers.

>
> I noticed that CVSNT...   you must now pay a distribution fee to obtain the Community Edition of CVSNT.
> I think this is an issue with CVSNT but hope* someone has a solutiion...
>
If you can pry source code out of the March Hare folks, then perhaps
you could fix it. March Hare seems to have stopped work on CVSNT and
moved onto their own products.

My inquiries about the supposed source availability (supposedly
cvs.cvsnt.org maintains a public CVS server where the code can be
found, but I've been greeted with access refused every time I've tried
it) were met with 'we don't maintain that server, not our problem'.

If I read the GPL correctly, they DO have an obligation to provide the
source code to anyone that they've distributed the binary to. They DO
NOT have an obligation to provide the source to anyone who comes along
and asks for it. So, whoever originally got the binaries from them
that are in TortiseCVS could (in theory) ask for the source and (under
the GPL) they pretty much have to give it up. They could then publish
the source for the rest of us to get to.

Note that I've found http://cvsnt.sourcearchive.com/ which appears to
have source up through 2.5.03, but nothing beyond that. If you really
wanted to, you could start from there, re-implement whatever fixes are
in 2.5.05 and move forward.

-- 
Michael Kohne
[email protected]


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/